From Richard Young's Intermediate New Testament Greek: A Linguistic and Exegetical Approach (amazon.com), available in print (amazon.com) and also in Logos format.

Do not insist on classical distinctions—As noted above, Hellenistic Greek is not characterized by the strict usage of classical Greek. The preposition ἐν, for example, displays a wide variety of meanings beyond its root idea, much of which comes from Semitic influence. One of the major shortcomings of Lenski’s commentaries is his tendency to insist on the classical meaning of ἐν. Moule (1968:49) states, “It is a mistake to build exegetical conclusions on the notion that Classical accuracy in the use of prepositions was maintained in the κοινή period.” In connection with this, it might be misleading to say any preposition (especially ἐν) has a literal or proper meaning. Rather prepositions have a range of possible meanings with some more common than others.
Young, R. A. (1994). Intermediate New Testament Greek : A linguistic and exegetical approach (amazon.com) (86). Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman.

This is from Robertson's introduction to the first edition of W.H. Davis' Beginner's Grammar of the Greek New Testament (newly revised by Dr. David Shackleford and published in print by Wipf & Stock and available electronically in Logos Bible Software). Robertson wrote the forward to the first edition for his former student and friend, William Hersey Davis.

If one gets it into his head that the root idea of tense is time, he may never get it out and he will therefore never understand the beauty of the Greek tense, the most wonderful development in the history of language. (Davis, vii)

The idea that time is not the "root idea" of Greek tense is not new. The above is dated back to 1923.

I suppose it's the degree to which time plays a role in tense is what Porter, Fanning, McKay, Decker, Campbell, Silva, Caragounis, et. al. are bickering about.

Ben Harper and the Blind Boys of Alabama, There Will Be A Light (amazon.com).

I subscribe to Rhapsody; this one has been off-limits for the past few years (after its initial release). On a whim I checked today, and it's available. Yee-Haw!

Track List:

1. Take My Hand
2. Wicked Man
3. Where Could I Go
4. Church House Steps
5. 11th Commandment
6. Well Well Well
7. Picture of Jesus
8. Satisfied Mind
9. Mother Pray
10. There Will Be A Light
11. Church On Time

Of the album, one Amazon reviewer says, "Is this gospel music? If it is, then I love gospel music."

An honorary doctorate was recently bestowed on me.

No, not for real, and not from an accredited institution of higher learning — but in some email spam from a company that will go unnamed so as to not promote them. I'm guessing they bought the SBL email list and assumed everyone on the list had attained doctorates of some sort.

Here's the proof at least someone considers me title-worthy. Er, that is worthy of a title of academic achievement (I'm sure many could think of all sorts of titles to give me ... )

While we're on the subject, I've thought for awhile I should just start putting the letters "N.D." after my name, like "Richard W. Brannan, N.D.", for "no doctorate". But I guess if I do that too much, Jim West will start calling me an empty-headed dilettante.

Of course, if there is a reputable, accredited institution of higher learning out there that would like to bestow a real, achievement-based 'honorary' doctorate, please feel free to contact me.

BDAG glosses as "quite empty", but its usage in Hermas Mandates 5.2.1 is what got me:

"Now hear", he said, "how an angry temper works, how evil it is, and how it subverts God's servants by its working, and how it leads them astray from righteousness. But it does not lead astray those who are filled with faith, nor can it work on them, because the Lord's power is with them. But it can lead astray those who are empty-headed and double-minded.

Ἄκουε <νῦν>, φησί, τὴν ἐνέργειαν τῆς ὀξυχολίας, πῶς πονηρά ἐστι, καὶ πῶς τοὺς δούλους τοῦ θεοῦ καταστρέφει τῇ ἑαυτῆς ἐνεργείᾳ, καὶ πῶς ἀποπλανᾷ αὐτοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς δικαιοσύνης. οὐκ ἀποπλανᾷ δὲ τοὺς πλήρεις ὄντας ἐν τῇ πίστει, οὐδὲ ἐνεργῆσαι δύναται εἰς αὐτούς, ὅτι ἡ δύναμις τοῦ κυρίου41 μετʼ  αὐτῶν ἐστιν· ἀποπλανᾷ δὲ τοὺς ἀποκένους καὶ διψύχους ὄντας.

Note the "empty-headed" (translation from Holmes' 3rd edition) is tweaked for the context; the other usage in Hermas (Mandates 12.5.2) is translated "those who are empty".

This is a great word. I can see Jim West giddily using it in the proper context.

From Eugene E. Loos' Logical Relations in Discourse (amazon.com). This is from Ernst-August Gutt's essay on "Logical Relations, Relationships and Relevance":

Just dealing with these two uses, the tempting solution would be to say either that there are two homophonous suffixes -m, or that the suffix -m has two distinct senses, one marking a conjunctive relationship and the other something like an alternative relationship. However, Ivan Lowe pointed out in his introductory lectures that it is not the most helpful way to begin one's analysis: by assuming a complex solution from the start one may miss a possible simpler solution. (Loos 11).

Gutt is specifically referring to a connective in Silt'i, an Ethio-Semitic language spoken in Ethiopia. But the general principle is a good one for both lexical analysis and specifically the analysis of connectives ... like αλλα.

Don't worry, I'm not getting all gushy about relevance theory on y'all. But the principle seems like a good thing to keep in mind.

From Michael Holmes' excellent and highly-recommended diglot edition (amazon.com):

(3) After these words of hers ceased, she said to me, “Do you wish to hear me read?” And I said, “Yes I do, madam.” She said to me, “Pay attention, and hear about the glories of God.” I listened with care and amazement to things which I did not have the strength to remember, for all the words were terrifying, words which a human being cannot endure. The last words, however, I remembered, for they were beneficial to us and reassuring:

(4) “Behold, the God of hosts, who by his invisible and mighty power and by his great wisdom created the world, and by his glorious purpose clothed his creation with beauty, and by his mighty word fixed the heaven and set the earth’s foundations upon the waters, and by his own wisdom and providence created his holy church, which he also blessed—behold, he is removing the heavens and the mountains and the hills and the seas, and all things are becoming level for his elect, that he might keep the promise which he promised to them with great glory and joy, if they keep God’s commandments, which they received with great faith.”

Holmes, M. W. (1999). The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English translations (amazon.com) (Updated ed.) (339). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

Now I'm not arguing for canonicity of the Shepherd (even though Sinaiticus has both Shepherd and Barnabas after Revelation); there's some wacky stuff in the book(s) later on. But can you see why so many early Christians revered the writing? (you can see this more in the Mandates & Parables sections) The testimony attributed to "the Lady" regarding creation is simple in its attribution of such to God, but not specific regarding method — apart from ascribing creation to God's "invisible and mighty power" and "his great wisdom". I think Christians of all strides could testify to that.

The curious part (to me) in the above is the idiom "...and all things are becoming level for his elect". Osiek's Hermeneia commentary (amazon.com) is (at least to me) hard to follow on this; it doesn't really shed any light. I understand a bit from the context, but I'm left wondering if there is something in the larger milieu that I'm missing.

Update (2008-08-25): Thanks to reader BZephyr (check out his blog while you're at it) for some enlightening comments. Do make sure to read them.

A friend who happened upon Neil Elliott's new book The Arrogance of Nations: Reading Romans in the Shadow of Empire (amazon.com) passed it along to me. There are some intriguing parts, it appears, but there is also a lot of current events/politics that has creeped into the book, from what I can tell. On the intriguing parts, check this excerpt from the introduction:

Unfortunately, rhetorical-critical interpretations of Romans have often done little more than glean from the classical Greek and Roman rhetorical handbooks a novel technical nomenclature for an outline of the letter that has already been established, without the benefit of rhetorical categories, in dogmatic readings. ... Similarly, some interpreters tend to describe the letter in terms resembling the genre of the philosophical treatise or letter essay, though it bears none of the hallmarks of the ancient letter essay. Others seek to identify the rhetorical genre of the letter according to the categories of the ancient rhetorical handbooks, but falter on prior assumptions regarding the letter's purpose.

In contrast, I expect the ancient handbooks to be of only limited usefulness in determining the genre of Romans. The handbooks were designed, after all, for the fairly formal expectations of public oratory in the Greco-Roman world. (Elliott pp. 17-18)

All that said, I figured I'd mention it since I normally mention new books I receive or purchase. I've not read this book (outside of the introduction) and it isn't on my to-read list, but if/when I next hit Romans, I'll probably check it out.

Here's the blurb from Amazon.com:

Product Description
Elliott offers a fresh and surprising reinterpretation of Paul's letter to the Romans in the context of Roman imperial ideology, bringing to the text the latest insights from classical studies, rhetorical criticism, postcolonial criticism, and people's history.

By setting the letter alongside Roman texts (Cicero, Virgil, the Res Gestae of Augustus, Seneca, poets from the age of Nero, as well as later historians and satirists), Elliott provides a dramatic new reading of the letter as Paul's confrontation with the arrogance of empire - and with an emerging Christianity already tempted by the seductive ideology of imperial power.

The Arrogance of Nations (amazon.com) explores such topics as: Empire and the 'obedience of faith'; Justice and the arrogance of nations; Mercy and the prerogatives of power; Piety and the scandal of an irreligious race; Virtue and the fortunes of peoples; and Paul and the horizon of the possible.

About the Author
Neil Elliott, an Episcopal priest, teaches biblical studies at United Theological Seminary of the Twin Cities and Metropolitan State University in Minneapolis. He is the author of Liberating Paul and The Rhetoric of Romans.

If Romans is your interest, you should probably check it out (amazon.com).